Sherman Vs Panther
- Thread starter diopter
- Start date
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
Awesome!!!
I recall reading somewhere that the Detroit Diesel equipped units of the Sherman were sent to the Soviets.
Can't help but wonder if the test would have been a bit different if the Detroit had been in the comparison Sherman.
A supercharged Diesel instead of naturally aspirated Gas jobs. I think the Detroit diesel, with it's bottom end power...would be a better unit.
Can't help but wonder if the test would have been a bit different if the Detroit had been in the comparison Sherman.
A supercharged Diesel instead of naturally aspirated Gas jobs. I think the Detroit diesel, with it's bottom end power...would be a better unit.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
The footage is clips from Youtubes made (with soundtrack and text) by the Swedes mid/late 1940s military tests. They had Shermans, Panthers, Churchill and Soviet tanks.
The Sherman would have fared much better in those tests had it been fitted with the "duckbill" extended end connectors on the tracks. With this simple modification, the ground pressure was practically the same as for the Panther. Later Shermans with horizontal volute spring suspension had wider tracks and lower ground pressure than a Panther.
Two things that the Sherman had going for it over the Panther (or any other contemporary tank) were ease of maintenance and reliability. A powerful gun and heavy frontal armour don't do you much good when half of your tanks are dead-lined by breakdowns. The French Army evaluated the Panther after the war and found that final drives lasted only 150 km, on average.
Two things that the Sherman had going for it over the Panther (or any other contemporary tank) were ease of maintenance and reliability. A powerful gun and heavy frontal armour don't do you much good when half of your tanks are dead-lined by breakdowns. The French Army evaluated the Panther after the war and found that final drives lasted only 150 km, on average.
CreamySmooth
CGN frequent flyer
And having friends up the road with mass quantities of T34's tends to help as well.
I play German in War Thunder. I never get scared when I'm in a Panther against any Shermans but the Firefly. And I know I still have an advantage.
Myself, I should have been an engineer...mechanical things fascinate me.
The engine line-up of the Sherman is mind-boggling. Chrysler multi bank? WTF...5 Chrysler truck engines arranged radially? Can you imagine trying to get those in sync?
An aircraft engine?
The logistics of fueling 'Oil burners' must have been a problem for Allied forces. Why else would you keep flogging gasoline engines when a Detroit Diesel ( which can run on various fuels in a pinch ) was an option. Heavy for the displacement, yep. But run forever and make decent power doing it ( insane amounts of noise mind you...my hearing aids would be testament to that ) on not volatile fuel.
Also the option of still having mobility if one engine went down, cool. Clutch out the non running engine and limp it home / out of the way.
The engine line-up of the Sherman is mind-boggling. Chrysler multi bank? WTF...5 Chrysler truck engines arranged radially? Can you imagine trying to get those in sync?
An aircraft engine?
The logistics of fueling 'Oil burners' must have been a problem for Allied forces. Why else would you keep flogging gasoline engines when a Detroit Diesel ( which can run on various fuels in a pinch ) was an option. Heavy for the displacement, yep. But run forever and make decent power doing it ( insane amounts of noise mind you...my hearing aids would be testament to that ) on not volatile fuel.
Also the option of still having mobility if one engine went down, cool. Clutch out the non running engine and limp it home / out of the way.
That theory worked for the Russians, Americans placed a little higher value on the lives of their soldier though. As it was, manpower shortages were a major problem for them by the end of the war. Easy for them to produce more Shermans, crews not so.
Grizz
US Army research at the end of the war found that average casualties for a knocked out Sherman were one killed and one wounded. Three of five crew escaping unscathed was a more typical outcome than three of five killed.
The most important ground vehicle of the war was not a tank, but the deuce-and-a-half truck. Logistics was the Allies' best tool.
I strongly recommend Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga to anyone interested in an objective history of the Sherman.
https://www.amazon.ca/Armored-Thund...44&sr=8-1&keywords=armored+thunderbolt+zaloga
When it came out, the Sherman was a big improvement over the previous British designs. It was first used at 2nd battle of El Alamein, and helped win the war.
At Arracourt, Patton's Shermans and M10 hammered the Panthers. The 76mm upgrade to the 75mm gun wasn't quite enough later on to be fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
Of the 262 tanks and assault guns deployed by the German units in the week of fighting near Arracourt, 86 were destroyed, 114 were damaged or broken down, and only 62 were operational at the end of the month. The 4th Armored Division's Combat Command A, which had borne the brunt of the 5th Panzer Army's counter-offensive at Arracourt, lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers.[SUP][1][/SUP] As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September, with casualties of 225 killed and 648 wounded.
— Zaloga (2008)
At Arracourt, Patton's Shermans and M10 hammered the Panthers. The 76mm upgrade to the 75mm gun wasn't quite enough later on to be fair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt
Of the 262 tanks and assault guns deployed by the German units in the week of fighting near Arracourt, 86 were destroyed, 114 were damaged or broken down, and only 62 were operational at the end of the month. The 4th Armored Division's Combat Command A, which had borne the brunt of the 5th Panzer Army's counter-offensive at Arracourt, lost 25 tanks and 7 tank destroyers.[SUP][1][/SUP] As a division, the 4th AD lost some 41 M4 medium tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks during the whole month of September, with casualties of 225 killed and 648 wounded.
— Zaloga (2008)
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I doubt it. Look at the difference in the suspension.
In somewhat defense of the Sherman {and T-34}, tanks that combined a level of automotive performance suitable for long distance offensive purposes, and had sufficient armor to resist high velocity 75 and 88mm guns at a comfortable distance, didn't exist until well after the war.
The late war Germans could get away with poor strategic mobility in their tanks, but it wasn't an option for the Allies.
The late war Germans could get away with poor strategic mobility in their tanks, but it wasn't an option for the Allies.
Gotta consider the Allies had to transport their tanks from the US by ship,as well. Heavier tanks would have meant lesser numbers. As anything else a trade off. Some of the last German tanks were about useless because bridges couldn't handle the weight.
Grizz
